A simple question

I asked a simple question as to why you didn't want to be credited for your work on Perl 6. And you respond with

Because I'm not a member of the DGA and felt it would be inappropriate to re-credit my work to Alan Smithee.

The answer to me implies that you, at one time, considered yourself to be the director of the Perl 6 project. My "delusions of grandeur" remark referred to that, since I was under the impression that Perl 6 was a community project and as such you overrepresented your role in the project by referencing the DGA and Alan Smithee

Alan Smithee (also Allen Smithee) is an official pseudonym used by film directors who wish to disown a project.

Is there another way that your answer should be interpreted? If so, please let me know.

With regards to the title: According to my dictionary, the verb "to bully" means "use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force them to do something". As far as I know, I've not been forcing you to do anything. But I am flattered by your assumption of me having "superior strength or influence". I wish I had, but am afraid I have neither.

With regards to your reference to smearing: my dictionary defines the verb "to smear" as "damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations". The noun "accusation" is defined as "a charge or claim that someone has done something illegal or wrong". For what it's worth, I don't think delusions of grandeur are illegal or wrong in or of themselves.

Comment on A simple question

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: A simple question by chromatic (Archbishop) on Aug 30, 2018 at 23:03 UTC
Is there another way that your answer should be interpreted? Yes; it's an analogy. I don't know how many other people have their names in the CREDITs file. Dozens for sure. Hundreds perhaps. I'd be happy to be in the company of all those wonderful people, but I don't like how this project turned out, I don't endorse it, and I don't care to be associated with the end product. Analogies are never perfect. According to my dictionary... You shouldn't need to refer to a dictionary to determine if your behavior is kind.	[reply]
Re^2: A simple question by rje (Deacon) on Oct 15, 2020 at 20:48 UTC
I know I'm dumping, and adding noise, but I've been on Perlmonks for umpteen years now, and I do NOT equate it with kind behavior. More the opposite. It's a dangerous place. Or maybe you can call it "high standards". That would make me a Perl redneck, I suppose. Chromatic and Liz are both Denizens in my book. For whatever reason, you both have respect -- street cred -- whatever -- within the Perl community. So when mommy and daddy fight, I hope nobody is happy.	[reply]
Re^3: A simple question by chromatic (Archbishop) on Oct 15, 2020 at 23:07 UTC
I appreciate the kind thoughts, but I don't aspire to be some kind of elder statesman or anything. I'm human like everyone else here. I have a lot of opinions and some of them are going to turn out to be wrong and some probably terrible. I'll own up to the bad ones and hope that if they're harmful, I get called out and rethink them. In exchange for that, I feel like it's my responsibility to call out harmful opinions when I can, in a way that's effective. Despite my public disagreement here, I hold Liz in the highest regard. I think it's the sign of maturity to be able to do that and disagree.	[reply]
Re^3: A simple question by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Oct 15, 2020 at 22:32 UTC
Dangerous? Really? Is that the general state of discourse here? That it is a threat to one’s safety or well being? :\|	[reply]


Perl-Sensitive Sunglasses
	PerlMonks